Skip to main content

About your Search

20130101
20130131
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
points out in panama, 1989, iraq, 1990, serbia, 1998, afghanistan, 2001 and iraq, 2003, washington tried sanctions pressure and the threat of force to get leaders to change course, it didn't work. and washington had to make good on its threat to go to war. with north korea, coercive diplomacy also failed, but in this case, washington decided against military action choosing, instead, to contain the regime. making coercive diplomacy requires a mix of threats and promises. with regard to iran, the administration has made the threats plenty of times. with clarity and credibility. but while the sticks have been handled shrewdly, the carrots have not. the united states is unable to define for itself or for the world what would be an acceptable deal and, most importantly, what it is willing to do if ta ron agrees to such a deal? would sanctions be lifted? which ones? would the u.s. stop its efforts to overthrow the regime? would it be willing to discuss normalization of relations with iran? there have been many obstacles in the path of a deal from the iranian side. but a former state departmen
out with sanctions in places like panama and serbia and afghanistan and iraq, indeed, did not succeed. so does senator hagel have a point there? >> well, there's no question that multilateral sanctions are far more effective when we began the process with iran. one of the amendments that i actually put into that process was to ensure that the sanctions we put in place were much -- multilateral, and what we didn't do was really hurt those people who are friends, the very companies and countries that are our allies, so there's no question that when we put sanctions in place, we need to do everything we can to make sure that they are multilateral. one of the reasons that i want to spend time with chuck hagel is i think as richard haass pointed out, there's been a lot of one-liners, if you will, that have been looked at, and i want to dig in and find out whether that really is chuck hagel's view of the world or whether we're taking these things out of context, but certainly i have concerns as we move forward. they're not disqualifying concerns, and, again, i think the meetings that i have
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)